to re-examine financial incentives given to large corporations looking to relocate. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. >> live thursday on the c-span networks, at 10:00 a.m., oregon governor kate brown on the curn and future state of u.s. elections and how her state can serve as a model. that's on c span. at 1:00 p.m. we join a national commission meeting to explore mandatory universal military, national, or public service. on c-span2 at 8:00 a.m., the canadian-american business council looks at the chances of getting the u.s., mention ke, and canada trade deal ratified. speakers include the kentucky governor and the premiere of ontario -- the premier of ontario, canada. and on c-span 3:00 at 8:00 a.m., a look at the agriculture outlook with secretary sonny per due and his counterparts from canada and mexico. philadelphia,e

president and ceo of the national constitution center here to talk about the powers the president has to declare a national emergency and related matters. guest: good morning. host: can you shape what powers are given to the president declare a national emergency? guest: the constitution says nothing about national emergencies. the president has the power to take care that the law is faithfully executed and he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, article two of the constitution. congress, article one, has the power to appropriate funds and the power of the purse as well as to pass legislation. any emergency powers the president has come either from statutes congress has passed, -- that is the central question in the legal battle -- or, can be

inferred from the president's power to repel sudden attacks. the supreme court has spoken about how we should think about the constitution in federal law and that is what makes this current controversy so incredibly rich, important and complicated. host: one of the things mentioned frequently is the national emergency act of 1976. set the stage of how we got to having that act and what it does. guest: great question. you're right. text.the central i will put on my constitutional reading glasses to get the exact words. 1976. congress is concerned the president, during the vietnam war, was invoking national andgencies frivolously

senator church said they wanted to create a framework. according to the act, the relevant part, when it comes to the building of the wall is a section called section 2801. that justifies military withruction in connection military construction projects. the president, when deeming a national emergency, wanting to engage in military construction can invoke this section. in the original act, congress was given the power to repudiate the president's actions by a simple majority vote within 18 days, if one house voted to say the congress -- the president could not invoke the emergency, the other house had to act. in a subsequent case, supreme court struck down legislative veto, mainly congress's power to

disapprove presidential action by simple concurrent majority. therefore, now, in order to disapprove the presidents action, congress would have to pass a law that the president would have a chance to veto. they would have to override that veto by 2/3, a high threshold. those of the broad contours of the act. since 1976, presidents have declared emergencies nearly five dozen times. it happens frequently. there have only been two times that presidents have declared national emergencies to authorize military action. 9/11. this is the first time since then that the president has declared a national emergency to authorize military action, and also the only time since 1976 the president has invoked a national emergency to justify

funding after congress has rejected a request for particular funds. the central question in this case is whether or not congress's refusal to authorize funds counts as explicit rejection? which according to the supreme court, which would put the president's power at its lowest ebb, who could then invoke statutory authority. it is interesting. want to ask questions of our guest about the national emergencies act, what presidential powers are involved and related matters, do so on the phone lines. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. is how you reach us on twitter. how do lower courts generally including theses,

16 states filed? big clashes between the president and congress are rare. the first threshold any court would consider is the question of standing. technical legal doctrine saying people filing suit have to show they have suffered concrete injury as a part of the presidents action. attorney general's of the state have filed a lawsuit saying they are losing money, which they would have otherwise have gotten , to reallocate money for the wall. the counterargument is the president can use other pots of money before he allocates money that would have gone to states, therefore they have not suffered concrete injury. the courts will have to decide. congress may well file a lawsuit of its own. in a case a few years ago during the obama administration, supreme court held congress has

standing to challenge claimed misappropriation of funds. that standing question may be different. more broadly, we have seen during the trump administration, a rise of individual district court judges issuing national injunctions saying, it cannot be done across the country. those are controversial. a few cases, supreme court has lifted those injunctions and allowed action to go forth anyway. andt will hinge on timing which money is being spent when, who is injured, whether lower courts and the supreme court think injury can be remedied. these are technical questions the lower courts will face before they get to the central fundamental important question that viewers must focus on this morning which is -- whether the president has attempted to use funds congress has specifically denied him by invoking an

emergency power or whether he can rely on congressional authorization? host: you highlighted cases where presidents have used this power. twice in 200018. guatemala, chinese cyber attacks, the russian invasion of ukraine in 2014. it highlights actions going back to george w. bush, including 9/11. when people say because this was used before, why not use it now? guest: the case i think of. i teach constitutional law. it, lovesho teaches to talk about a case from 1950. middle of the korean war. harry truman wants to seize the steel mills because workers are threatening strike.

he says that will threaten the war effort. he wants to invoke constitutional powers as commander-in-chief to nationalize the mills and prevent strike. the supreme court, in a historic decision says he cannot do that, that the president cannot invoke commander-in-chief powers to declare a military emergency. there is an important opinion by justice robert jackson. i would love for viewers to read this. it was beautifully written. he sets out three categories for how we should decide whether the president is acting lawfully when he invokes emergency powers. president is acting with congressional authorization. powers are at its highest ebb. second, congress has said no, you cannot do this, the president is at lowest ebb/ third when congress has not spoken clearly in the president is in a twilight zone.

the central question everyone is asking is -- which category is the president in? is this a case where congress, having been asked to fund the wall has refused to do so and therefore putting the president in category 2 where his powers are at its lowest ebb, or is this a category 1 case where the act of 1976 specifies how the president can authorize relocation of money, his declarations generally get deference from judges even if they disagree and then everything hinges on whether or not the wall is being used for military construction and whether the army is being used to implement policy. the big question we all need to think about today -- the answer is not clear -- whether you are republican or democrat, set aside your political views, because we are trying to figure

out the constitution and the relation between presidents power in congress -- is this really an effort, as some have said, to circumvent congress appropriations power? in the president do it -- can the president do this anyway and does that represent a challenge to the separation of powers? is this something congress has brought on itself by delegating so much authority onto the president, bypassing big statutes that allow the passing of a national emergency without a definition, is it congress's fault? are judges down to settling the question? host: jeffrey rosen, joining us until 9:00 this morning. north carolina, republican line, rob, you are on.

caller: hello. in my life i have experienced the effect of illegal mexicans. i think the wall is a good idea. the reason i believe democrats would disagree is they have a conflict of interest. the democrats are trying to stop it. they know that without illegal voters, which will be eliminated because a wall will stop the illegals from coming and we will be rid of them, because people without a state id should not be allowed to vote, yet that is rampant. the drugs need to stop. is going toall handle both of the problems of illegal voting and the drug epidemic and i hope the president can do the executive orders obama loved to do and hurt america. host: thanks. guest: the first is a policy

point. if there is a national emergency at the border leading to better results. that is relevant. if the courts decide the president's declaration of a national emergency is a pretext, basically if there is no emergency and he made it up, they might not allow interact under the act. "i coulddent said, have done it anyway." challengers will say that is a pretext. in general, courts have been reluctant to second-guess presidential declaration about an emergency. arguments all policy the caller raised are not likely to come before the court. obama usedn that executive orders is an important point. the caller is correct. the numbers that trump has used

are similar to obama and george w. bush and there were cases -- cases where obama had used executive orders, particularly dreamers. it is an absolutely fair point that both democratic and republican presidents in recent years have turned to rejected orders to achieve policy ends that they have been unable to achieve from congress. the implication for emergency power, does this put it in a different category or not? host: is this synonymous with an executive order? guest: no. you can issue an executive order without declaring a national emergency. executive orders go back to president washington, declaring thanksgiving. the numbers are interesting. president washington issued a handful, 4.

2-3 during early administrations. it was not until president lincoln that the numbers soared to 50. ballpark. president theodore roosevelt was the big executive order president. 100, he tried to do things like seize lands for environmental purposes or file antitrust actions. things went down a bit. president wilson used them a lot. 2000 --red under fdr, 3000 during world war ii. ofclosing -- internment japanese americans, the supreme court notoriously upheld. the numbers went back down. like 200en something or so for george w. bush, obama,

trump. you can do all sorts of things. when president obama tried to defer action on dreamers, he just issued an executive order. there is a difference between declaring a national emergency, six dozen times or so since 1976 and an executive order. here the president is invoking a statute that requires him to declare a national emergency before he can invoke it. in this sense he is not acting but executive order. thank you to the caller for clarifying. the president is invoking a congressional statute for national emergencies act, not issuing an executive order. host: independent line, new jersey, andrew. caller: good morning, mr. rosen. let me remind you, during the civil war, abraham lincoln, president at the time, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which

allow union soldiers to willingly go into people's homes to search for southern sympathizers and everything else. i think what mr. trump, first of all, this guy as a businessman, always loved controversy, ok? he loved a headline. signed anave just executive order instead of going to the emergency powers act. we know all the problems with the drugs coming from mexico, it is in the paper every day. people in the border states say they have a problem with illegals crossing. this has been going on for years. why, all of a sudden is this a national emergency? i mean, i can see during 9/11, yes, this was a day of infamy, an attack on america. this is comparing apples to oranges. host: thank you. guest: great analogy with president lincoln. that is an important historical moment to look at. you're right.

president lincoln did suspend the writ by executive command even though constitution gives congress the power to suspend it. the crucial thing was he asked congress for authorization after the fact. after the immediate emergency, he sought and received congressional authorization. he viewed that as a temporary action necessitated by the war. could president trump have done this by issuing an executive order rather than invoking emergency power under the act? the tricky thing is that congress has the power over the purse, article one, section nine, gives congress appropriations power and for an executive order to direct the use of funds that congress refused to authorize would be a tricky thing. that is why presidents have not tried to do it.

guest is the president and ceo of the national constitution center. ioncenter.org.tut guest: the only institution in america created by u.s. congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people on nonpartisan basis. like c-span, we bring together citizens of all perspective, liberal, conservative and in between to learn about the constitution. go to the interactive constitution, get it in the app store or on the web, and you will find the finest liberal and conservative scholars in america by bipartisan groups, describing what they agree and disagree about. you can click on the

appropriations clause and see what the scholars think and you can make up your own mind. learning about the constitution is the greatest privilege and duty of citizenship. that is what we are trying to do. we have a beautiful education center on independence mall in philadelphia with the rarest copy of the constitution written by james wilson. it is a most exciting place to visit. hadstudents of all ages, we more than 4000 kids in the building on presidents' day. it is a thrilling place to learn about the u.s. constitution. host: new york, republican line, frank. caller: good morning, how are you? we had passed presidents -- past presidents and congressmen saying there was an emergency at the border. do you think that could help president trump's case? guest: it could. courts have been reluctant to

second-guess presidential declarations. we talked about the six dozen times presidents have done it since 1976. some of those were kind of sketchy. what was the real emergency? when it came to these actions, that had to do a trade policy or cyber war where the emergency was not imminent. generally, there is huge judicial deference any time the president doesn't emergency, unless it is completely made up, generally courts differ. here, it is a polarized time. the president said, i do not need to do this. that will be relevant in the lawsuits. when the supreme court upheld president trump second travel ban, it refused to look at his twitter and statements where he said, this is a muslim man, and instead wanted -- muslim ban and instead wanted the text. here, the courts may say it

doesn't matter what the president said, we are just going to look at the text of the emergency and we might disagree about whether or not there is an emergency, we will differ to him -- defer to him. host: do the courts have the power to issue an injunction? guest: yes. at least, arguably so. judge find a district issuing a national injection, saying because there is likely to be irreparable harm because spent, he will have to redirect them. lawsuits have said there will be environmental harm. they said they would lose money they would otherwise get. individual property owners are likely to say they are suffering constitutional violations under the takings clause by having their lands appropriated for public use without compensation. they may bring a lawsuit.

district judges can issue injunctions. as we talked about, supreme court has been suspicious in some cases recently, and has lifted injunctions are doing actions should go forward until supreme court can weigh in. host: we heard the reference to the ninth circuit. is that the avenue the cases would go through? guest: not necessarily. ,he california lawsuit california is one of the states and in the ninth circuit. that is a political talking point. the ninth circuit is considered more liberal than the other circuits, though that is not necessarily the case. you could have lawsuits filed and heard in any circuit and if the house of representatives challenges the misappropriation power, that could be heard in a different circuit. there are lower courts all over

the country that could hear the case based on where injury is alleged. that is where the standing question and where the case is likely to be heard comes into play. host: from luther in massachusetts, democrats line. caller: good morning. visit theway to gettysburg battlefield. it is a marvelous place to visit. i recommend anyone interested in american history to visit. my question is, it seems congress has been giving its power to the executive in ways that are damaging to our system in terms of checks and balances. the constitution says congress shall declare war but we have

not heard them sending armed forces all over the world on just their order. i would like you to comment on that, please. guest: it is such an important point. very much a point both republicans and democrats are concerned about. as you say, the constitution gives congress the power to declare war but the last one was world war ii, not since then has they -- have they formally passed a declaration of war. korean war on, it has been executive action supported by congressional actions. we are seeing this dramatic example of national emergency power, being invoked in cases many folks on both sides think are not emergencies, and in the case of military power, for things that are not clearly connected to military action and that is why there have been republicans and democratic senators who have expressed the

exact concern needed, which is that we have developed an imperial presidency where muchess has ceded too authority to the president, refused to authorize the checking function the founders counted on. james madison believed the legislature would be the most dangerous branch, a vortex sucking everything into its voracious appetite. they thought the president would be constrained. they were trying not to create a king. that is why the presidency has so few powers in contrast to congress. if you allow me to plug this meaningful podcast i have the honor of hosting, we the people. every week, i call on top liberal and conservative scholars to ask the constitutional question of the week. today, we will talk about the question you posed, has the presidency become too powerful?

there will be a conservative and a liberal scholar. it will be interesting to see how they line up. it is healthy for democracy that liberals and conservatives today are concerned that since world war ii and before that back to 1912, congress has been cedeing too much power to the president and maybe it is time to take it back. host: what is the process? guest: the original process was to pass the concurrent resolution, which does not require a presidential signature. as we talked about, the supreme court said that legislative veto was unconstitutional. the process would be to pass a law saying you cannot do this in the president would have a chance to veto and congress would have to override by 2/3. congress could go back to the drawing board. this entire act represents too

broad a delegation of authority. we are sorry we gave the president this open ended definition of emergency. we will pass a new law saying the president cannot spend any money not specifically appropriated. the problem is, the president would have the chance to veto the law and you would have to override that by 2/3 majority. could chooseress to rethink the entire delegations of authority to the president it has been doing ever since the 1970's and before. it could also, we have seen this great battle over tariffs. it is congress that has the power over tariffs. if it shows it could repudiate these tariffs by statute, but it has not done that. the best thing congress could do, if it is thing -- if it thinks its power is being

ped,ed, -- it is being usur it can pass a law. repeat,i would like to i am independent. as an american citizen, i'm concerned about this issue. we have established, no doubt, that the house controls the purse. the central question for me is the implications for trump's latest outrage. attempthouse use trumps to bypass the house to build his wall, to bring about impeachment proceedings? no, if if that is a nancy pelosi had stated, if president trump declares an emergency to build a wall that the house would then consider

beginning impeachment proceedings? those are separate questions. two different situations. thank you. guest: thank you for your question. it is important. is the president's attempt to circumvent congress's power, grounds for impeachment? as nancy pelosi presses ahead, impeachment is a high crime or misdemeanor. it is famously undefined in the constitution. said,ssman ford famously impeachment is whatever the house says it is. under some theories, they could impeach for any reason. history suggests, if congress believes the president has actively acted to subvert the law, that is indeed a quintessential example of a high crime or misdemeanor. president andrew johnson was

impeached for violating the tenure in office act by firing edwin stanton despite congress attempts to pass a law saying he could not do that. -- that was example an example of bringing impeachment because of subversion. your question reminds us regardless of what the courts say about whether the president can do this under the act, if congress -- say, majorities in both houses manage to pass a law saying they believe the president has misspent these funds, even if the president vetoes it, that judgment itself might be the grounds for concluding the president has attempted to subvert the will of congress and bringing impeachment proceedings. impeachment proceedings require a majority of votes in the house but they require 2/3 to convict

in the senate, which may or may not be reached. house's conclusion that the president has exercised his powers to subvert its constitutional authority and to violate the law, could potentially be grounds for impeachment. host: we heard speaker pelosi say when it comes to the use of a national emergency, a democratic president could in the future use the same context to take gun control under consideration. does she have a point and does this set pr -- president? dent?ece guest: it does set it. any time a president does not get the money he wants from congress, he can invoke a national emergency and do what he wants anyway.

that is a violation of congresses appropriations power. a future democratic president could declare the green new deal by declaring a national emergency. there have been republican commentators and conservative senators and representatives concerned about the action itself and the danger if the courts bless it, just as robert jackson, said, i hope all of you viewers will read, because it is brilliant, "once the courts bless an alleged exercise of emergency power as a one-off, the president stands about like a loaded gun, which can be resurrected by a future president." that is what could happen here, if the supreme court blesses this action. a future president pelosi or democratic president could invoke and the other side could regret it. host: gary is next. caller: thank you for being

here. believehe fact that i this country is my home, my , thetors came here before fact that illegals are costing american taxpaying citizens $100 billion a year and nobody wants to address that fact, and that is a national emergency. they are stealing from me and every other taxpayer. benefitst legal once, them over our own citizens, it is over $114 billion a year, you are talking to trillion dollars in 10 years. that is an emergency when you are stealing from me. media,gress and our news all going the other way. they will not give any facts. as far as i'm concerned, our

senators and representatives, our news media and i believe i -- 7% of them are ofublicans, that means 93% your news media -- host: thank you. guest: i appreciate the sincerity of the colors view and the fact that many -- the caller's view and the fact that many people believe there is a crisis that needs to be addressed. i encourage you to view this issue in constitutional terms. who decides? who has the power of the purse and who has the power over immigration? what is striking, and i'm glad you focused on this, it is congress, not the president, that has the power to set immigration policy and to decide

who comes in and out. arguably,al action is has been a usurpation of congressional authority. emergencys indeed an as you describe, the constitution may suggest it is up to congress to resolve it and to strike a balance, compromise or solution over immigration. the president was negotiating with congress over what to do on immigration. that deal fell through. according to our constitutional system, if congress can agree about what to do over immigration and refuses to authorize money, before 1976, the action could not take place. that is a reminder that even when policy issues are hotly contested, our system does count on some degree of compromise and negotiation. that is why madison was so insistent congress be filled with people guided by reason rather than passion and willing to deliberate with the other

side. that is why the polarization that has afflicted america and which is now at a higher rate than at any time since the 1870's after the civil war, is making it so hard for congress to govern in the way that the framers were concerned about and that is why these issues are so important. host: birmingham, alabama, democrats line. dorothy. caller: i have a question in a statement. -- and a statement. i have learned the united states is supposed to be the mother country. if we are the mother country, why is it that, if we are the mother country, why is it that we cannot receive people from any other nation? we should be able to do that. i am sorry, i'm getting

confused because i can hear myself on the tv. guest: it is hard to hear that. calling.nk you for a reminder for viewers, turned on your television to stop the feedback. it is an inspiring point. when you talk about the mother country, you have in mind the inspiring words on the statue of liberty. bring your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. the idea that america would be the welcome her of immigrants -- the welcomer, a nation of immigrants, is deeply embedded in our national consciousness and has come to define our debates for many years. we have to acknowledge the difficult history, which is full restrictionsmatic

on immigration. we have not always been a country of open borders. in the 1920's, we passed all sorts of discriminatory immigration policies that excluded people of asian descent, chinese background, explicitly race-based disabilities. those restrictions have remained in american law for many years. it was not until the 1970's, the supreme court began to look with great suspicion on any classifications based on national origin. you articulate and inspiring of equalitynness and inclusiveness, a beautiful word, that the supreme court has used, but it has not always been practiced and at the moment, for better or worse, our politics are divided between those who want to keep borders open and

those who want to close them. that is the source about conflict. talk about eminent domain issues at play aside from legal issues? issue.that is a huge landact is, most of the the president wants to build the wall on, is privately owned. in america, if you want to take someone's land, you have to have just compensation. seizing land under alleged military authority for military purposes raises vexing legal issues. aggrieveda lot of property owners likely to say, hey, federal government, get off my land. they will bring constitutional challenges under the takings clause and statutory challenges and those will have a separate track. the effect will be to slow down the ability to build the wall

and make it possible no substantial portions of the wall will be built until after the 2020 elections, because it will be tied up in lawsuits. host: a viewer on twitter saying, wouldn't the national emergency for gun control run into the second amendment? emergency fornal border security have an amendment it is fighting against? guest: great questions. pelositure president declared a national emergency over gun control and invoke to the act, claiming military power, this would be tricky, but to seize the guns, there would absolutely be a constitutional challenge. people would invoke the second amendment. they would note the core historical fear, that the federal government would take everyone's guns, making it

impossible for citizens to dissent in their state. if you go to the interactive constitution, you can read the state constitutions in the revolutionary era that expressively said, as standing armies are dangerous to liberty, the federal government should not be able to take away everyone's guns. what the supreme court would do about that is open for question. regardless of what congress said, the constitution prompts ordinary statute and in that case, there would be a strong second amendment claim. is there a competing constitutional consideration here? one is the appropriations clause of article one, section nine, the claim that the president is trying to circumvent it by this se.al root we have not talked about the nondelegation doctrine.

regardless of what congress wants to do, it cannot delegate its authority to make laws under article one to the president, because congress has to make the law and the president has to execute them. since the new deal, the supreme court has been suspicious of the doctrine and has generally allowed congress to delegate huge amounts of power to executive agency, like the federal trade commission or the environmental protection agency and it has upheld broad delegations on grounds that the president represents the people and he is allowed to exercise this authority. however, current supreme court is signaling a willingness to re-examine the nondelegation doctrine. in a case this term it said it may take a second look. neil gorsuch has been an eloquent critic, claiming congress should not be able to delegate all this power.

it is possible this could get to supreme court and you may have more conservative justices, including those appointed by president trump, like justice gorsuch, questioning congress' power to delegate authority to the president and that may another constitutional argument that could trump the alleged statutory authority. host: jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center, this is doug, republican, florida. caller: good morning. 11 million illegals already in here, how many billion more will it take before congress does anything at all? thank you. see.: we will the congressional negotiations failed. the fact that they were not able to succeed even with a republican house and senate and a republican president suggests immigration has become a

polarizing issue. that a frustrating fact guns,guns -- like immigration is an issue, polls suggest support for some restrictions, but not total restrictions, but the parties are so polarized congress cannot seem to reflect that consensus. it is a frustration. frustration, that congress cannot reflect the wishes of the american people. it may be a long time. host: expecting the legal challenges, what faces the solicitor general over this issue? guest: the solicitor general defends the position of the united states in federal court. once those cases are heard by federal courts, starting in district courts, appellate

courts, the solicitor generals office will file on behalf of the united states. it will be a parties brief. the lawyers will argue those cases. if and when the case goes to supreme court, solicitor general will argue the case. solicitors generals of both parties invariably defend executive power. interactstor general with the office of legal counsel, the constitutional think tank which issues opinions about executive power. the department has issued an opinion blessing the president's exercise of authority. senate democrats have asked for a copy of that opinion. they are not typically public. the solicitor general would rely on that opinion in the course of

writing his or her brief. host: will the newly appointed general -- newly appointed attorney general william barr have a role in this? guest: a broad, supervisory role. if he directs the solicitor general to take a position, he would have to do that. he generally would leave it up to the solicitor general. this is a morning where have to issue congratulations to my namesake, jeffrey rosen, just appointed deputy attorney general. william barr appointed jeffrey rosen to be deputy attorney general, some of my friends on twitter thought it was me. i'm happy to report i will be staying at the national constitution center. for all i know, although i have not met him, jeffrey rosen is a distinguished lawyer who has brought honor to the rosen name. congrats to our new deputy attorney general, jeffrey rosen.

host: your namesake. continuing on calls for you, this is bill from maryland, independent line. caller: i appreciate your passion for the constitution. i feel like more people should be into it like you are. that is a great thing. i agree with you earlier what you said about congress granting broad power. it will let the president do what he needs to do in this case. something about stopping immigration and closing the border. i disagree with that statement. we are not doing that. we are stopping illegal immigration. the border is staying open through the ports of entry. another thing i would like to say is, a question i have is, congress has already given money for the wall, in part.

to me that opens the door to allow him to continue that in a broader sense. also, how would this be different than the war on drugs efforts that have gone on in the past? there are troops on the border, to be able to protect them? guest: those are great questions. thank you. you're right. important distinction between efforts to restrict legal and illegal immigration and there are folks who support open borders for legal immigration but want to restrict illegal immigration. that is part of the congressional debate. -- the questions were so good and now i need reminding on what the other two were. host: he mentioned border security. border. presence at the

i apologize. guest: the military presence, i am not being quick enough this morning. can we ask the caller to repeat them? host: we have already let him go. guest: if you email me, jr osen@constitutionalcenter.org. host: new jersey, democrats line. mr.er: i want to thank rosen for being there. a comment in question. the symbiotic relationship between democrats and republicans in the house. in the 1970's, the best thing that happened to democrats was nixon. in the 1990's, the best thing was newt gingrich.

now, the best thing is mr. trump, who has basically given over -- [indiscernible] -- single-handedly. i don't mind. the question is, if you can talk about specific acts that presidents have done that have recedent regarding the constitution? thank you. guest: great question. ents thatthe big preced have expanded presidential power? we have to go back to 1912. writinge experience of a short book about taft, who was not thought a great president but was a great chief justice of the supreme court. he wrote a book called, our chief magistrate and its powers,

a great primer to presidential powers. it is free online. book, therein that is no undefined residual power the president can claim because he thinks it is in the public interest, he has to invoke a specific grant of power in the constitution or federal law before he can exercise it. he can only do what the constitution especially allows. president theodore roosevelt, says the president can do anything the constitution does not explicitly for bed -- explicitly for bid. he explains for the first time, that the president channels the will of the people and can act without statutory authorization. the paths clashed over whether the president could protect environmental lands or send troops up the border or lower tariffs without congressional authorization. roosevelt wanted to use executive orders.

taft is fighting the election, opposing roosevelt and woodrow wilson who are defending this broad vision the president can act in ways the constitution does not especially authorized. taft lost big-time. won only 2 states. the wilson position has triumphed and it is been defined -- has been defined by the imperial presidency, another great book to read about presidential power. the big actions imperial presidents have taken since wilson, are woodrow wilson's, putting people in jail in world war i for criticizing the war, where he invoked the federal theonage act, internment of japanese americans

by fdr and real calla getting -- thingsocating funds and cap rolling along and after congress delegated more authority, we have six dozen national emergencies since 1976. this is not just our current president asserting these powers. that is why our president has so many precedents to rely on. host: one of our viewers on twitter, remember the question that was asked. distinction between executive orders regarding the war on drugs versus the founding of the border wall? guest: that is great. i am not sure whether executive relys in the war on drugs on this military authorization act of 1976.

it is a statute. not an executive order. it has to do with military action. executive orders in the war on drugs were important. eric holder, president obama's , did issue anal executive order to justify the so-called fast and furious operation, which had to do with guns and the war on drugs. some claim that was outrageous cruiser patient of congressional patient --- looser usurpation of congressional authority. thank jim forto pointing that out. valerie, california, go ahead. caller: why isn't nancy pelosi worried about these people

trying to get in illegal aliens, emigrants, why isn't she worried about them? their lives? she says she does not want a border wall but nobody has talked about these people dying every day, these people that are over there now waiting weeks and weeks, when it takes years to get in this country? it should be done legally. why isn't congress, and everybody talking about these people, instead of the president -- why isn't he being judged? all the way they have found no russian collusion, evidence whatsoever. that is all you hear, all you people talking about how that our president is. congress going back to what you said initially, should be in the driver seat? guest: it should be and it is frustrating. it must be frustrating to people on both sides, republicans and

democrats that this issue, which is so important, is one that congress cannot reach consensus about. there was almost a grand bipartisan immigration deal during the george w. bush administration and it got scuttled at the last minute by extremists on both sides. the last major reform we had was 1986, during the reagan administration which continues to define a lot of our policy. that was a congress functioning much better. we had a democratic speaker working hand-in-hand with ronald reagan and this is perhaps the most emetic example of the polarization -- dramatic example of the poll is there is -- the polarization in our politics, host: as ithost: plays out, what he watching for?

the supremehat court is going to do is the ultimate question. until the supreme court rules in, i would like our viewers, and this is your homework assignment, follow these lower court decisions as they come out. read the briefs. it is hard to do. it is my job to read the briefs. great constitutional team who help me prepare for the show. you do not have to be a lawyer to do it. check out the briefs that california has filed, check out the reply brief. all the stuff is online and wait for the decisions when they come down, read the majority and read the dissents, too. so you can make up your own mind. the one thing i want you to do no matter how much time you have to spend on this, do not assume the right constitutional result is the one that accords with your policy preferences. it might well be that you think

the wall should absolutely be built, the president cannot do it without congressional authorization. or you think the wall is a terrible idea. if you approach in that spirit, you learn a lot about the constitution and you will be exercising your highest motion as a citizen, cultivating your faculties of reason and participating in a great project of american democracy. host: jeffrey rosen is the president and ceo of the national constitution center located in philadelphia. constitution center.org. mr. ro >> c-span's "washington journal," live with news and policy issues that impact you. thursday morning, author and former dea agent jack riley details the inside story of his 30-year hunt for the drug kingpin el chapo and the rise of international drug trafficking. discussesael ferran

amazon's decision to pull its hq to site out of new york city and the move by some states to relook at incentives. watch c-span's washington journal. tonight on c-span, and profiles of congressional leaders continue with house minority leader kevin mccarthy. kidding,arks from only founder of 350.org, a climate change organization. that is followed by a discussion on climate change with mr. mckibben, authors, journalists, and activist. as ronald reagan advised us, america is too great for small dreams. when we work together, we succeed together as one nation. we are now ein